so those are three big ones, and i'm sure i'm leaving lots of others off. now, whether or not they'll all get there this term depends on timing and a lot of other things. it should. there's the possibility that this term could be quite a dramatic one. >> other questions? yes, down here. >> picking up on ron and neal's colloquy there toward the end of the discussion wherein the lower courts tend to ignore, for lack of a better verb, the supreme court presence. how much of that, and i realize there's no perfect answer here, but opinions are interesting as far as i'm concerned, how much of that has to do with a willful desire to ignore the court, as ron hinted at, like you can't take them all, and how much of that will deal more with the fact that the court, the high court that is, has in its series of precedents that are relevant have stopped short of a bright line? that is to say, i'm thinking particularly of an oregon case, williamson v. philip morris, where punitive damages is the issue. the court in the last 15, 20 years offered several opinions that deal